[nana]
j/k
I think in a week or two you may be rewarded
(Yeah I know it was supposed to be released at SHOT...)
You should be able to use the same mag - but a few co.'s are making aftermarket dedicated platforms out of Steel...

Interesting concept and one of many being looked at by the DOD for special purpose rifles.
However, the .270 bullets are still on the low end of ballistic advantage in the 125-130 weight range. Referencing some of the bullet makers data, the Barnes 125 XLC at .466 BC and the Sierra 135 Matchking at a best of .488 are nice bullets. The article mentions the use of a 125 grain with a BC of .380 which sounds like a HP Flat Base Bullet which is probably needed to get the velocity described.
As a comparison to .270 bullets, a Lapua 6.5 mm 123 grain Scenar has a BC of .547 and the Norma 130 grain 6.5 mm is measure the same. I use a Cautericcio that is an easy .560 at 128 grains.
Given similar bullet weights 60-70 ballistic points does make a difference when you are talking case limited velocities. Take your ballistic computer or reloading manual and look at the tragectory and retained energy at range. The 6.5 128 grain at 2750 fps MV has the following profile at 700 yards
V - 2084 fps
E - 1235 lb
Drop with 300yd zero - 80.11 inches
Looking at the data in the article for the 6.8mm 125 at 2750 fps
V -1372 fps
E - 522 lb
Drop with 300 yard zero - 122.9 inches
It is pretty easy to see that the 6.5mm has a ballistic advantage over the 6.8mm.
I started down this path 5 years ago and built a 6.5 PPC in an AR15 that I have been shooting for almost 3 years. I use a 128 grain cauturiccio bullet with a .560 BC that I run at 2750 fps keeping pressures in a comfortable range. I have loaded hotter, but safety, safety, safety. Ballistically, you can see above what the 128 grain does compared to the 6.8mm 125 grain. Also, the 6.5 mm retains supersonic performance beyond 1000 yards. This is also a magazine length round. Accuracy wise, I shoot .5 MOA (5 shot) out to 600 yards with a 16x scope.
In the 6.5 PPC, I use a GI 20 round magazine with minor tuning of the feed lips and dont have problems. For those that say modification,,,oh no. Many magazines require tuning now and then to function perfectly. Look in the article at JD Jones comments on the 300 Whisper and magazines.
If you want to see the 6.5 PPC. take a look at http://www.defensereview.com and look at the article on the .26 Grendel. Article is sketchy, but download the windows media player clip from Armed Forces Journal International done at the Blackwater Training Center.

Lee, Don't pay any attention to the info contained in the anti 6.8 artical, they are the ones from area 51. The 6.8 is alive and well and those guys don't have a need to know, but do have a conflict of interest. Kevin is correct.
Good shootin, Jack

Deja-vu anyone?
It seams to me this "dream" that people have about converting all the current military rifles to a new caliber comes around every few years or so. There has been talk of re boring or barreling rifles in .243, or 6mm for some time. I read all the threads under the post from MSTN about 18" barrels (this thread turned into a thread about this very subject)but I just dont see this actually happening in a real world anytime soon. Unless they put this new Dream round into the New G36 we are supposed to get by about by 2006! Yea Right (just kidding).
Think about it, people say its more cost efficient to rebore or rebarrel rifles as oppossed to adopting a new rifle. I have a hard time believing that. Think of all the man hours involved in this conversion and the logistics of converting all rifles in the military, including the Guard and reserves. Does anyone remeber when we switched from the A1s to the A2s, and every time you went the range for the first few years the supply SGts were getting A1 ammo for A2 rifles for zero range then when you get to the Qual. range you were given A2 ammo and the whole Company or Battalion would FAIL to Qual. This is the same fiasco that would occure. Just think about it. Why do they tear down an old McDonalds and build a New McDonalds Building in the same place, why are Computors replaced in most Govt agencys when they are outdated instead of being updated? If the Gov. did decide to replace the 556 with a more potent caliber It would be more cost efficent to replace all the rifles at the same time. (they dont pay retail)What is the cost of an M4 to the Gov.?
I personnally think this is a farse at least for the next Decade or so. There is way to much going on and from reports Ive heard and seen posted on this very forum about how the M4 has been performing with the New issued ammo, I believe this is a dead or NON-issue if it were to come before a Congressional Spending Commity.
Enjoy your SPRs and M4s and M5s, they will be around for a LONGGGGGGGGG time to come.
Just My $.02
cp

Originally Posted By eaglecp:
Does anyone remeber when we switched from the A1s to the A2s, and every time you went the range for the first few years the supply SGts were getting A1 ammo for A2 rifles for zero range then when you get to the Qual. range you were given A2 ammo and the whole Company or Battalion would FAIL to Qual.

View Quote

Sounds more like the Bn wasn't training its shooters very well. Difference in point of impact between M193 & M855 out to 300M won't change your score.
There is a shift & drop - but rounds will stay on a military target.

If the Gov. did decide to replace the 556 with a more potent caliber It would be more cost efficent to replace all the rifles at the same time.

View Quote

Maybe - perhaps, the new caliber is only for use by some of the soldiers and not all of them?
Just maybe.
Then again there is no Area 51....

Forest
Im sorry but it does make a difference when useing different ammo, the Army uses a 25m Reduced Sillouette to zero to standard. To accomplish this the rear site has to be raised one "click" up to compensate for the trajectory. This way the bullet strikes the 25 meter sillouette on the upward arch that it does on the down side of the arch at 300m.
I am not a ballistic expert But I did spend 6 years with the Army Reserve Rifle team doing Small arms Training for units from Ohio Kentucky and Tennessee, Everytime A unit got mixed M193 for zero and M855 for Qual. I heard the same thing from the Commanders " It doesnt make any difference just shoot it" And every time The scores came in Those same commanders were scratching their head wandering why their soldiers couldnt shoot. Same reason a Battalion of Marines failed to Qual. in Desert Sheild right before the war started. If the Military used a true 300 meter zero or even a 200m zero as we did on the Rifle Team, I would agree with you but using a 25m reduced sill. throws that right out the window. Just to let you know.
On the computer ranges at Ft Knox, "Ditto Hill 1" and "Ditto Hill 2", Most misses registered at 200,250,300 so if you throw out 3 exposures at 300,5 at 250,and 6 at 200, that only leaves you with being able to miss 3 more and still qualify with 23 of 40. If you Thow in that darn FAST FREDDIE at 50 that everybody always seams to miss at least 1 or 2 exposures and youve about had it. Just some fun facts guys.
cp

The Underpants Gnomes told me that the space aliens that control our government don't want the cartridge because it will affect their control of us and have directed their pervasive powers to quashing it at every turn......the data you seek is in area 51, Hanger 13 in the round file case.
.........Uh-oh I said too much-gotta go I hear sirens and black helicopters!

Originally Posted By eaglecp:
Forest
Im sorry but it does make a difference when useing different ammo,

View Quote

EagleCP,
Not a big enought differenct to notice. I'm VERY familier with the Zeroing procedure the Army uses (and how terrible it is).
The fact is the difference out to 300M is only 4-5" of drift & elevation. Not enough to miss the 18" wide by 40" tall target
Heck the Zeroing procedure you use (the 25M 8/3+1 method) causes more of an error than the ammo (as you are effectively shooting with a 400M zero).

This way the bullet strikes the 25 meter sillouette on the upward arch that it does on the down side of the arch at 300m.

View Quote

That is the theory - the problem is zeroing at 25M gives you a 375M zero. Those of us that learned on the M16A1 remember. They don't do enough twidling with the elevation knob. (for more info see "M16A2 Rifle Zeroing Problems" by MAJ Kevin Dougherty )

I am not a ballistic expert ...Those same commanders were scratching their head wandering why their soldiers couldnt shoot.

View Quote

Its not the ammo - again I'd tell you its the zeroing method. 10+ inches high at 100 yards and its easy to miss the smaller 50 & 100 yard targets...
I've switch ammo - Heck I've gone from M193 to 68gr Match and can still make hits on smaller targets than the one you use.
You don't have to belive me;
1) Try it at the range yourself
2) Test in on any ballistic calculator
3) Look it up in FM23-9 Appendix F or FM 3-22.9 page 5-33.

Originally Posted By TX65:
it does well. However, if you look at competition target shooters who seek to maximize performance, the 6.5 mm is the chosen caliber in rounds like the .260 Remington and 6.5-.284. You never hear of a competition shooter using the .270.

View Quote

yeah, I've been wondering about this myself
the 6.5mm/.264 seems like it would be a better choice
I have a .260 REM & it's a tack driver,
I wanted to build a 6.5-.284 but I'm going with a 6.5-.06 instead
since I inherited an old Rem700 in .30-06 it will be easier
but it seems like a .223 necked up to 6.5mm would hold some promise ??
I guess we'll all learn more about the 6.8 soon[?]

quote:
Heck the Zeroing procedure you use (the 25M 8/3+1 method) causes more of an error than the ammo (as you are effectively shooting with a 400M zero).
HATE TO SAY IT FOREST BUT YOUR WRONG HERE, IT IS 8/3 + 1 CLICK, NOT ONE FULL GRADUATION TO THE 400M MARK. YOUR CALCULATIONS BELOW WOULD BE RIGHT I GUESS IF YOU SET IT THAT WAY.
FM22-3 CLEARLY STATES THIS METHOD FOR ZERO ON A 25 METER ZERO, IM GUESS NOW THE ARMY AND MARINE CORP. ARE WRONG? YOU CAN USE ALL THE BALLISTIC CALCULATORS YOU WANT BUT IN THE REAL WORLD YOU ARE WRONG, I HAVE SEEN THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND YOU SOUND EXACTLY LIKE THE COMMANDERS THAT I ARGUE WITH 4 TIMES A YEAR. IT DOES NOT WORK IF YOU ZERO WITH DIFFERENT AMMO, YOU TRY IT! I HAVE, AND I HAVE SEEN HUNDREDS OF OTHERS TRY AND PROVE ME WRONG, IT DOES NOT WORK.
I THINK WEVE TOTALLY HI-JACKED THIS THREAD,
SORRY ABOUT THAT INKAYBEE

This way the bullet strikes the 25 meter sillouette on the upward arch that it does on the down side of the arch at 300m.

That is the theory - the problem is zeroing at 25M gives you a 375M zero. Those of us that learned on the M16A1 remember. They don't do enough twidling with the elvation know. (for more info see "M16A2 Rifle Zeroing Problems" by MAJ Kevin Dougherty )
I DID LEARN ON THE M16a1 IN 1988 AND GUESS WHAT THE A1 USES A 250M ZERO, SORRY AGAIN.
I NEVER SAID THIS WAS A GOOD WAY TO ZERO YOUR WEAPON, I ALSO NEVER SAID THERE WERENT PROBLEMS WITH IT. BUT THIS IS THE STANDARD THAT THE MILITARY GOES BY. ON THE RIFLE TEAM WE ZERO AT THE KD RANGE TO THAT EXACT RANGE, THAT IS THE ONLY AND BEST WAY TO ZERO. I KNOW THAT, BUT LIFE BEING WHAT IT IS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD AND THE ARMY DOESNT HAVE TIME FOR MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING AS IT SHOULD BE DONE. I GUESS WELL JUST HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE.

Originally Posted By eaglecp:
HATE TO SAY IT FOREST BUT YOUR WRONG HERE, IT IS 8/3 + 1 CLICK, NOT ONE FULL GRADUATION TO THE 400M MARK.

View Quote

Eagle,
I'll do this slow because you're not following me.
The 8/3+1 effectively sets the sights to 330M (its not exactly there but close enough for the purposes of this discussion).
However if you shoot point of aim to point of impact at 25m that is a 375M zero for M193. From a 20" barrel with M855 you're round will be comming back to LOS at 367.6M (402 yards).
Now click your sight back to 8/3 (it drops down 1 click). How does this effect your point of aim/point of impact at 25m?
You've moved your point of impact lower by .25" - it moves in the far zero but its still out there at 370y at sea level(338.3M) [even further out as temp or elevation goes up]

FM22-3 CLEARLY STATES THIS METHOD FOR ZERO ON A 25 METER ZERO, IM GUESS NOW THE ARMY AND MARINE CORP. ARE WRONG?

View Quote

USMC learned that the 25M system was in error and now zero at 36y for a true 300M zero. If you look at the latest MCRP 3-01A you will see that change.
The Army still hasn't learned. Yet there was the published paper (see my first post), from tests done in 1994 at Ft Jackson, which confirmes the zeroing procedure is in error.
Fun Fact: The Elcan used by our Allies (Canada & Denmark) on their C7s (basically M16A4s) zero at 25M [b]using the 400m setting[/b]. (I can supply a copy of this manual as well).
I can prove on any range in the US my calculations - and have done so.

YOU CAN USE ALL THE BALLISTIC CALCULATORS YOU WANT BUT IN THE REAL WORLD YOU ARE WRONG,

View Quote

Hmm wanna bet the US Army used the same calculators (but punched in the wrong figures) to get their results?

YOU TRY IT!

View Quote

As noted I have.

I DID LEARN ON THE M16a1 IN 1988 AND GUESS WHAT THE A1 USES A 250M ZERO,

View Quote

Did you forget the procedure?
With the M16A1 you zero at 25M [b]using the L aperture[/b]. This gives a 375M zero. You then [b]FLIP[/b] back to the unmarked apertures for a 42/250M zero.
See the Army forgot about the 'flip' just like you did (BTW this is covered in both FM23-9 [figure 3-21 & text on page 3-25] & the older -10s. I can supply copies if you don't have them.)

ON THE RIFLE TEAM WE ZERO AT THE KD RANGE TO THAT EXACT RANGE, THAT IS THE ONLY AND BEST WAY TO ZERO.

View Quote

Absolutely!

ARMY DOESNT HAVE TIME FOR MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING AS IT SHOULD BE DONE.

View Quote

But it does have time to fill body bags? (Army short sightedness)
I agree they don't spend enough time on firearms training - heck we got what 1 week in Basic?
Here is another great article on Zeroing you should read (especially the comments at the end): [url]http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/improvedbattlesightzero.msnw[/url] Most of us use it as it does properly calibrate the elevation wheel.

Forest
Ok as I stated above I know that the zero procedure the Army is currently using is in error, I did not know the MC had changed, however you can put all the arguments you want in there but I will still disagree, Like I said before it just doesnt work. I suppose if you were dealing with experianced shooters they would know how to aim to compensate,
But Im telling you I have seen TIME and TIME again that if we are training a unit and they use M193 ammo to zero and then switch to M855 for qualifying, the majority (70-80%) FAIL to qualify on KD Computerized pop up targets.
ON 4 occasions That I can recall within the last 2 years those same units had enough time due to being on AT to RE-ZERO with M855 the following day, and when they went to Qualify directly from the Zero range you ended up with a BOLO rate of only about 10% instead of 70-80%.
Like I said before I dont know how I can make it any clearer. This is a fact, I witnessed it myself. For the record I didnt foregt the "flip"
The M16A1 zero target is a 250M reduced sillouette target set at 25M,
Look all Im saying here is I experianced this first hand many times, But I suppose as you would make it seem I imagined this. Ill say this slow for you Forest, Im not trying to get in a pissing contest with you , Im not argueing your numbers and your ballistic charts, all that is mostly BS anyway because it assumes you are shooting in a perfect world without factors such as temperature, slope/grade on KD range etc. What Im telling you is real world facts that I have witnessed in over 13 years of service and 6 years on the the 1107th Special Marksmanship Training unit/ U.S. Army Reserve.
I dont think this is worth argueing any more, You want to keep argueing to be the big man, but the problem is I agree that zero procedure is faulty, but the Army still requires that it be trained as this is the current standard. If you try to train it right, some A-Hole whipps out the FM23-9 to prove you wrong. (sound familiar)So until the Army decides to update and change it to a new standard this is the way we have to do it. AND ill say it one more time I dont care what your books and ballistic charts tell you, If you take a standard Infantry, Engineer, or other Combat Arms unit to a zero range and zero with M193 then try qualify with M855 they will FAIL. Sorry but this is a Fact.
cp

blikbok
I never heard of that but Im not sure, the only issue we have ever had was A1 M193 ammo being used in A2. Now I have zeroed and qualified units without any problem if they used M193 for both zero and qual. according to Army current standard, again.
cp

inkaybee
sorry again this thread got side tracked I didnt mean to hi-jack your thread. In my original post I was adressing the likely hood of this new "wonder" round being put into practical use in the military, but as youve seen here some people love and live to take what you say and try to pick it apart to be the big shot.
sorry again
cp

inkaybee:
Like KevinB said, it was supposed to debut at this year's SHOT Show, where a couple big-name ammo manufacturers were all set to show off their offerings in this caliber. Also, PRI had some of the magazines developed for this caliber (steel, straight-bodied) on display.
Not too long ago, there was a report about the caliber / ballistic performance testing of this cartridge "available". It was marked confidential, but it seemed to find its way into everyone who had a valid email address's hands. Hell, you can probably find it on Google.
Good luck,
Clint

6.8 is dead?
While 77grn 5.56 may offer similar terminal performance, I can still think of at least two advantages 6.8 would offer.
1st The larger bore will resist the capillary action of water and therefore it should drain better
2nd A serious subsonic round is possible. Just slap in a mag and add a quick mount suppressor and you are stealth.

Issue with the 6.5mm in .223 brass is brass length and OAL. A .223 case is 1.760 inches which leaves .500" at best for a magazine length round. Only a light 6.5 bullet would work (bullets that are in a weight range where a 6mm bullet would be better).
If take the PPC, the case is 1.500 inches leaving .760 inches for the bullet in a magazine length load. In my 6.5 PPC, I load 128's without stuffing them in the case. Also, the PPC does give a bit more powder then the .223 Remington case.

Originally Posted By TX65:
Issue with the 6.5mm in .223 brass is brass length and OAL. A .223 case is 1.760 inches which leaves .500" at best for a magazine length round. Only a light 6.5 bullet would work (bullets that are in a weight range where a 6mm bullet would be better).
If take the PPC, the case is 1.500 inches leaving .760 inches for the bullet in a magazine length load. In my 6.5 PPC, I load 128's without stuffing them in the case. Also, the PPC does give a bit more powder then the .223 Remington case.

I wouldn't think there is a big difference b/t 6.5 - 6.8 tho with such a small case it could be a hair more case capacity would make a difference. Wasn't the original Garand round supposed to be a .270? The velocities would probably be rather slow from a small case and a bullet witha higher sectional density should retain them better tho - a 105gr-115gr 6mm bullet. Could be the military is looking for more performance (bigger hole) between 100-400 yards rather then retained energy at extended ranges.

Originally Posted By TX65:
Issue with the 6.5mm in .223 brass is brass length and OAL. A .223 case is 1.760 inches which leaves .500" at best for a magazine length round. Only a light 6.5 bullet would work (bullets that are in a weight range where a 6mm bullet would be better).
If take the PPC, the case is 1.500 inches leaving .760 inches for the bullet in a magazine length load. In my 6.5 PPC, I load 128's without stuffing them in the case. Also, the PPC does give a bit more powder then the .223 Remington case.

The ideal military combat ammunition should provide both acceptable accuracy and adequate terminal performance out to at least 300 meters and preferably to about 600 meters. Accuracy should be at least 1.5 MOA, if it is closer to 1 MOA, so much the better. The bullet should penetrate at least 12 to 15 inches, with early yaw initiating within 1 or 2 inches of initial penetration. Fragmentation should occur at all ranges from zero to at least 300 meters. The bullet should be able to penetrate common intermediate barriers such as automobile windshields, glass windows, building walls, and soft body armor. The ammunition should be light and compact enough for the soldier to carry an adequate supply of ammunition in magazines of at least a 25 round capacity. The rifle should be similar in size, weight, and ergonomics to the proven M4/M16 weapons. Recoil should be manageable to allow full auto fire when necessary, along with the more usual rapid, aimed semi-automatic fire. We can see from the above that .22 caliber rifle and carbine ammunition is probably too small for routine combat use, while .30 caliber ammunition is too large.
The United States made two major missteps in its search for the ideal combat rifle caliber. In the late 1920’s, John Garand originally designed the M1 rifle in .276 caliber for which Frankford Arsenal provided the new ammunition that used a 125 gr bullet at approximately 2700 f/s. Ordnance trials determined that Garand’s .276 caliber T3E2 rifle was an ideal combat weapon, however, development of the .276 rifle was halted in 1932 because of the large remaining stocks of old .30-06 caliber M1906 150 gr FMJ ammunition left over from WWI and the U.S. military threw away an opportunity to adopt the superior performing .276 caliber 125 gr ammunition. Following WWII the United States military again made a colossal weapon system selection error when it rejected the British .280 caliber 140 gr bullet along with the T48/FAL rifle and instead selected the 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge and the T44/M14 rifle. In hindsight, we can hypothesize that a .280 (7 mm) FAL would probably have been an ideal combat rifle and would likely still be in use today had it been chosen. Continued ammunition development has confirmed the efficacy of these earlier attempts to develop ideal combat rifle ammunition and validated that the optimal combat rifle caliber is likely to be around .270 to .280 caliber.

From what I have seen, so we can discount hearsay: The new 6.8 is being produced by Remington. They are working on it in conjuction with the U.S. Special Operations Group, whoever they are this week. The case appears to be a take-off of the old .30 Remington case. The run of the mill, GI, 30 round M16 Aluminum mag.,with a different follower, will hold 26 rounds, and will still be able to be load into the rifle with a closed bolt. The new mag., as advertized by PRI, is steel. The reiforcing grooves that run from the top to the bottom of the mag are shallower, the mag is a little longer and it has a new follower, so it will hold 28. The upper appears to have a mid-length gas system,a different bolt, and oh yea, the hole in the bbl. is bigger.
As all you old timers know, this info is "as of" today, and your gun friendly government could change their specs tomorrow. A sure bet is that Remington will have this cartridge in a bolt rifle by the Shot Show and give them some needed sales "push", since they have had their lunch handed to them by Winchester with the Ultra Mags and the new Super Short .223 and .243.
Regardless of any perceptions, true or otherwise, we are at war, and history has shown, when we are at war, military R&D dollars are plentiful...so are guys looking for promotions. If you take all this into consideration, hell, our guys could be using ray guns by the time this whole deal is finished.
So... not to make this into document; the 6.8 is real, you'll be able to use your old 30 rounders, with the addition of a new follower, and for those that want to hunt with their AR, you now have a factory caliber that will be legal in most states that allow semi-autos and .22 calibers were illegal.

So then, I'll need a new barrel, bolt + carrier, maybe even a new gas tube, & new mag followers. How about the buffer assy? Anything else I might have missed? I wonder how much all of this is going to cost?